Hi, On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:41:55PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:50:02PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 03:14:50PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote: > >> >> >> Should these files be consolidated? And if so how? > >> >> > if you can find an easy way, that would be a very, very welcome patch. > >> >> > >> >> Is the ideal solution to consolidate both fusbh200-hcd.c and > >> >> fotg210-hcd.c in a single module? If this is the case, how to detect > >> >> at run time which version of the hw is present? Both are registered as > >> > > >> > does it matter ? If they work the same way, why does it matter which > >> > one's running? > >> > >> I may be missing something simple, but based on a 2 page product > >> brief, fotg210 has more resources like memory. So even if the .c files > >> are _very_ similar, there are some configuration parameters that > >> differ, for example: > >> > >> fusbh200.h: > >> #define BMCSR_VBUS_OFF (1<<4) > >> #define BMCSR_INT_POLARITY (1<<3) > >> > >> fotg210.h: > >> #define OTGCSR_A_BUS_DROP (1 << 5) > >> #define OTGCSR_A_BUS_REQ (1 << 4) > > > > Can you detect that in runtime ? If you can, detect it. If you can't use > > different platform_device_id. > > > >> >> notebook (hp elitebook 840), and on a VM, even if neither has the hw > >> >> ($ sudo modprobe fusbh200-hcd). The module loads with the warning > >> >> "fusbh200_hcd should always be loaded before uhci_hcd and ohci_hcd, > >> >> not after". On another workstation running ubuntu, I could load both > >> >> modules at the same time, producing the same warning for each module. > >> >> Should the module load if the device is not present? > >> >> > >> >> Other solution for consolidation would be to create a common_code.c, > >> >> keeping both fusbh200-hcd.c and fotg210-hcd.c only with the code that > >> >> differ. Is this better than what is there now? > >> >> > >> >> Other ideas? > >> > > >> > just combine them :-p Use platform_device_id to differentiate. > > Can you check the f2xx branch at: > > git@xxxxxxxxxx:petersenna/linux.git > > And tell me if this is the way to go for the consolidation of the two > drivers? I started with the newest driver, did code cleanup, and > started filling the new driver with parameters from the older > FUSBH200. At the moment it compiles for x86 and probably still works > for FOTG210 devices. A concrete question I have is if should I keep > making many patches for the consolidation or should I do a single big > patch with all changes? Comments are welcome. it's best to just send patches. Also, you gave me an ssh URL which I can't use because I don't have write access to your tree (and I don't want to have it). -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
